DOCSLIB.ORG

What Scientists Say About Evolution the Modern Theory of Evolution Is

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Scientists Say About Evolution the Modern Theory of Evolution Is What Scientists Say About Evolution The modern theory of evolution is largely attributed to Charles Darwin who published his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859. From 1922 through 1953, Alexander Oparin, a Russian biochemist, and J.B.S. Holdane, an English biologist added what has been called the Oparin-Holdane hypothesis. This theory deals with the origin of life by chemical evolution in a "prebiotic soup" composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water vapor in a reducing (little or no free oxygen) atmosphere. Although several slight changes in the "prebiotic" or "primordial soup" have been suggested, we could summarize the idea of evolution as generally taught in biology texts today, as follows: prebotic soup >> "Simple" >> "Complex" Chemicals >> amino acids >> polymers/RNA/DNA >> single cell >> plants and animals >> plants and animals >> ape >> man Three major ideas are always present: 1. simple >> complex (i.e., non-living >> living) 2. a very long period of time 3. no design (i.e., random, chance, or "natural processes") As a recent college biology text has observed... "Proof of evolutionary theory, in the rigorous sense of an experimental verification or demonstration is impossible for several reasons. The most Important reason is that evolution is a historical phenomenon."1 Also, evolutionist and scientist, Colin Patterson, Ph.D., has stated: "We must ask whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudoscientific (metaphysical)...taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a single process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory about unique events; and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable and so not subject to test.."2 This means that evolution is not a fact but a hypothesis not proven by science. However, we can look at the evidence and see if the facts seem to support the idea of evolution or not. This is the purpose of this booklet-to compare the evidence with the hypothesis. When one does this, one finds several discrepancies between the facts of science and the hypothesis of evolution. Five major problems are listed below. 1. Lack of Evidence for Prebiotic Soup There is a growing body of evidence that the early earth's atmosphere was not reducing and not composed of the materials proposed by Oparin, Holdane, etc. Dr. Robert Shapiro, an evolutionist and biochemist, has a whole chapter titled "The Spark and the Soup" in which he discusses "the myth of the prebiotic soup"3 . Drs. Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen have summarized the problem as follows: "...in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. The soup would have been too dilute for direct polymerization to occur. Even local ponds for concentrating soup ingredients would have met with the same problem. Furthermore, no geological evidence indicates that an organic soup, even a small organic pond, ever existed on this planet. It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario `the myth of the prebiotic soup.'"4 It should be noted that the reason the reducing prebiotic mixture was selected in the first place was that only it could have possibly produced the organic material needed for the chemical evolution of life. Geologists in the 1920's did not produce fossils showing such a prebiotic soup which then led to the Oparin-Holdane hypothesis. 2. Lack of Transitional Fossils Scientists agree that we have fossils of the major types of plants/animals. However, since evolution states that change from one type of plant/animal to another type occurred very slowly, we should find many fossils of transitional or intermediate life forms. For example, according to the theory of evolution, reptiles became birds over a long period of time. We should, therefore, find fossils of several animals between reptiles and birds. What do we really find? None! Actually, Darwin knew this problem and said so: "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."5 However, he thought that as we found more fossils we would find these transitional forms. What have we found so many years later? Let the scientists speak. Evolutionist and paleontologist David Raup, Ph.D.: "Darwin...was embarrassed by the fossil record, ...we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much...We have even fewer examples of Evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin`s time."6 Evolutionist geologist and paleontologist Stephen Gould, Ph.D.: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."7 In fact, Dr. Gould calls this lack of evidence of transitional forms a secret well-kept from those in the general public (apart from those in paleontology): "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."8 Dr. Michael Denton, (also an evolutionist) has said, "Without intermediates or transitional forms to bridge the enormous gaps which separate existing species and groups of organisms, the concept of evolution could never be taken seriously as a scientific hypothesis."9 3. Sudden Appearance of Complex Life Forms (esp. in the lowest geological layers). We could summarize the evolutionary position on geology and life forms as follows: 1) The earth's surface is composed of several layers, with the oldest at the bottom moving up to the youngest layer on top. 2) Since the simplest life forms are the oldest they appear in the lowest layer and gradually change through the layers to the complex life forms in the top level(s). This means that the ancestral form of each life form should be in the layer below it and the lowest layers should have the `simpler' life forms. However, what do the rocks tell us? Let the scientists speak. Fred Hoyle, Ph.D. and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Ph.D.: "The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning...the tendency is to imagine that there must have been a time when simple cells existed but when complex cells did not. ...this belief has turned out to be wrong. ...Going back in time to the age of the oldest rocks... fossil residues of ancient life-forms in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. Although we may care to think of fossil bacteria and fossil algae and microfungi as being simple compared to a dog or horse, the information standard remains enormously high. Most of the biochemical complexity of life was present already at the time the oldest surface rocks of the Earth were formed."10 Take the trilobite for example. "These animals first appeared at the beginning of the Cambrian period approximately 570 million years ago."11 The Cambrian layer is characterized by a tremendous variety of fossilized life forms. However, the layer below it, the Precambrian, contains almost no fossils (bacteria, algae, etc.) and certainly nothing that could have remotely given way to a trilobite because the trilobite is a very complex little animal with organs, exoskeleton, etc. Consider the trilobite eye... "At least two types of eyes are distinguishable in the trilobites...The holochroal or compound eye consists of touching hexagonal calcite lenses which may number from 100 to more than 15,000."12 Anyone who has ever seen or held a trilobite realizes that they are very complex creatures. Could they have come directly from a spore, a bacterium or algae? What is such a complex animal doing in the very bottom of the fossil record? We observe again and again this fact that the plants/animals appear in the fossil record abruptly, with no ancestors and fully formed, just as in the Cambrian record (where we also find jellyfish, starfish, mollusks, etc.). To summarize I would like to quote evolutionist Michael Denton (Ph.D. in molecular Biology and M.D.!): "It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record ...The mollusks for example,...are all highly differentiated when they burst into the fossil record...the strata lain down over the hundreds of millions of years before the Cambrian era, which might have contained the connecting links between the major phyla, are almost completely empty of animal fossils...The story is the same for plants. Again, the first representatives of each major group appear in the fossil record already highly specialized and highly characteristic of the group to which they belong...Like the sudden appearance of the first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks, the sudden appearance of the angiosperms is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin `s time. The sudden origin of the angiosperms puzzled him...Again, just as in the case of the absence of pre-Cambrian fossils, no forms have ever been found in pre-Cretaceous rocks linking the angiosperms with any other group of plants..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology: from the Origin of the Universe to the Origin of Life
    52 stephen c. meyer Pages 53–111 of Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe. The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute. Michael Behe, STEPHEN C. MEYER William A. Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyer (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001. 2000 Homeland Foundation.) EVIDENCE FOR DESIGN IN PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY: FROM THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE TO THE ORIGIN OF LIFE 1. Introduction In the preceding essay, mathematician and probability theo- rist William Dembski notes that human beings often detect the prior activity of rational agents in the effects they leave behind.¹ Archaeologists assume, for example, that rational agents pro- duced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone; insurance fraud investigators detect certain ‘‘cheating patterns’’ that suggest intentional manipulation of circumstances rather than ‘‘natu- ral’’ disasters; and cryptographers distinguish between random signals and those that carry encoded messages. More importantly, Dembski’s work establishes the criteria by which we can recognize the effects of rational agents and distinguish them from the effects of natural causes. In brief, he shows that systems or sequences that are both ‘‘highly com- plex’’ (or very improbable) and ‘‘specified’’ are always produced by intelligent agents rather than by chance and/or physical- chemical laws. Complex sequences exhibit an irregular and improbable arrangement that defies expression by a simple formula or algorithm. A specification, on the other hand, is a match or correspondence between an event or object and an independently given pattern or set of functional requirements. As an illustration of the concepts of complexity and speci- fication, consider the following three sets of symbols: 53 54 stephen c.
    [Show full text]
  • Is Intelligent Design the Answer to Darwinism? Marcos Eberlin's
    Is Intelligent Design the Answer to Darwinism... 8(2)/2020 ISSN 2300-7648 (print) / ISSN 2353-5636 (online) Received: February 10, 2020. Accepted: June 2, 2020 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/SetF.2020.027 Is Intelligent Design the Answer to Darwinism? Marcos Eberlin’s Foresight and the Limits of Irreducible Complexity as Scientific Paradigm JASON MORGAN Reitaku University, Japan [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-2969-3010 Abstract. Marcos Eberlin is a chemist and mass spectrometer who advances in a new book a refined Intelligent Design (ID) theory hinging on “foresight,” or the apparent teleology and purpose discernible in biological, chemical, and other complex life sys- tems. Repurposing older ID arguments, such as those of “irreducible complexity,” and introducing new examples of phenomena pointed to by other ID theorists, Eberlin makes a strong argument for mindful creation by a “superintellect”. But is ID sufficient to answer Darwinism? Does “foresight” go far enough in providing an alternative view of the origin of complex lifeforms? I argue that Eberlin, and other ID theorists, does not have a robust-enough definition of science to counter non-theistic theories of biology and biochemistry. An Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of science allows us to go beyond the divide between ID and a-theistic theories and move the science-and-faith debate onto more solid ground. Keywords: Intelligent Design; foresight; biochemistry; irreducible complexity; Aristotle; Aquinas. 8(2)/2020, 393–402 393 JASON MORGAN Intelligent Design (ID) has maintained a toehold in an otherwise hostile scientific academy as a set of theories accommodating a theistic premise of purpose—“design”—to the universe.
    [Show full text]
  • God, Design, and Fine-Tuning
    God, Design, and Fine-Tuning Robin Collins (1) This paper is published in: God Matters: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion, Raymond Martin and Christopher Bernard (eds), New York: Longman Press, 2002. Copyright, Robin Collins. Do not distribute without permission. I. INTRODUCTION The Evidence of Fine-tuning Suppose we went on a mission to Mars, and found a domed structure in which everything was set up just right for life to exist. The temperature, for example, was set around 70 o F and the humidity was at 50%; moreover, there was an oxygen recycling system, an energy gathering system, and a whole system for the production of food. Put simply, the domed structure appeared to be a fully functioning biosphere. What conclusion would we draw from finding this structure? Would we draw the conclusion that it just happened to form by chance? Certainly not. Instead, we would unanimously conclude that it was designed by some intelligent being. Why would we draw this conclusion? Because an intelligent designer appears to be the only plausible explanation for the existence of the structure. That is, the only alternative explanation we can think of--that the structure was formed by some natural process--seems extremely unlikely. Of course, it is possible that, for example, through some volcanic eruption various metals and other compounds could have formed, and then separated out in just the right way to produce the "biosphere," but such a scenario strikes us as extraordinarily unlikely, thus making this alternative explanation unbelievable. The universe is analogous to such a "biosphere," according to recent findings in physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design: the Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Evolution?
    Christian Spirituality and Science Issues in the Contemporary World Volume 2 Issue 1 The Design Argument Article 2 2001 Intelligent Design: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Evolution? Ewan Ward Avondale College Marty Hancock Avondale College Follow this and additional works at: https://research.avondale.edu.au/css Recommended Citation Ward, E., & Hancock, M. (2001). Intelligent design: The biochemical challenge to Darwinian evolution? Christian Spirituality and Science, 2(1), 7-23. Retrieved from https://research.avondale.edu.au/css/vol2/ iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Avondale Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies in Science at ResearchOnline@Avondale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Christian Spirituality and Science by an authorized editor of ResearchOnline@Avondale. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ward and Hancock: Intelligent Design Intelligent Design: The Biochemical Challenge to Darwinian Evolution? Ewan Ward and Marty Hancock Faculty of Science and Mathematics Avondale College “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Romans 1:20 (NIV) ABSTRACT The idea that nature shows evidence of intelligent design has been argued by theologians and scientists for centuries. The most famous of the design argu- ments is Paley’s watchmaker illustration from his writings of the early 19th century. Interest in the concept of design in nature has recently had a resurgence and is often termed the Intelligent Design movement. Significant is the work of Michael Behe on biochemical systems.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 [UNCOMDISS] William A. Dembski, Ed., Uncommon
    What you believe to be true will control you whether it’s true or not. –Jeremy LaBorde Course Title: PHILO 7544; Intelligent Design Class Dates, Time, and Term: Monday afternoons, 2:00-4:00pm, Spring 2011 Room: TBD Professor: William A. Dembski (F-215D, 817-923-1921 x4435) COURSE DESCRIPTION This seminar seeks to make sense of intelligent design in light of the Christian faith. Of special interest here are attempts to undermine the philosophical and scientific validity of intelligent design, especially as it challenges materialistic conceptions of evolution. Four hours. COURSE GOALS This seminar helps students understand key challenges to the Christian faith posed by evolutionary theory and the scientific materialism that tends to undergird it; moreover, it explores how the intelligent design effectively counters such challenges. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES In this course the student will: Achieve proficiency in thinking, speaking, and writing effectively and professionally on the relation of intelligent design to the Christian faith. Know the main evolutionary challenges to the Christian faith as well as the most effective design-theoretic responses. Understand the historical backdrop for intelligent design, how materialist ideology resists its scientific acceptance, and how a richer theology of nature can incorporate it. COURSE TEXTS Required [UNCOMDISS] William A. Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2004). [DESLIFE] William A. Dembski, The Design of Life: Discovering Signs of Intelligence in Biological Systems (Dallas: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 2008). [GOD&DES] Neil A. Manson, ed., God and Design: The Teleological Argument and Modern Science (London: Routledge, 2003). [SIGCELL] Stephen C.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution: a Theory in Crisis By: Michael Denton
    ╝ Evolution: A Theory in Crisis By: Michael Denton ]1[ Preface It is not hard to understand why the question of evolution should attract such attention. The idea has come to touch every aspect of modem thought; and no other theory in recent times has done more to mould the way we view ourselves and our relationship to the world around us. The acceptance of the idea one hundred years ago initiated an intellectual revolution more significant and far reaching than even the Copernican and Newtonian revolutions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. [Michael Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers 1986, p15.] The triumph of evolution meant the end of the traditional belief in the world as a purposeful created order - the so-called teleological outlook which had been predominant in the western world for two millennia. According to Darwin, all the design, order and complexity of life and the eerie purposefulness of living systems were the result of a simple blind random process - natural selection. [Michael Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers 1986, p15.] Any suggestion that there might be something seriously wrong with the Darwinian view of nature is bound to excite public attention, for if biologists cannot substantiate the fundamental claims of Darwinism, upon which rests so much of the fabric of twentieth century thought, then clearly the inte1lectual and philosophical implications are immense. Small wonder, then, that the current tumult in biology is arousing such widespread interest. [Michael Denton: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler Publishers 1986, p16.] In this book I have adopted the radical approach.
    [Show full text]
  • The Teleological Argument: an Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe
    4 The Teleological Argument: An Exploration of the Fine-Tuning of the Universe ROBIN COLLINS 1. Introduction: Setting Up the Argument 1.1. Nature of project and summary of sections Historically, the argument from design probably has been the most widely cited argument for the existence of God, both in the West and the East (such as in theistic schools of Hin- duism). Modern scientific discoveries, particularly the discovery beginning around the 1950s that the fundamental structure of the universe is “balanced on a razor’s edge” for the existence of life, have given this argument significant new force in the last 30 years, with several books and many essays written on it.1 This precise setting of the structure of the universe for life is called the “fine-tuning of the cosmos.” This fine-tuning falls into three major categories: that of the laws of nature, that of the constants of physics, and that of the initial conditions of the universe, each of which we shall explore in Section 2. As will become clear in Section 5.2, the sort of life that is most significant for the argument is that of embodied moral agents, of which humans are one example. This chapter is a highly abridged version of an in-process book-length project in which I argue for the existence of God based on this fine-tuning of the cosmos for life along with the beauty and intelligibility of the laws of nature. The main purpose of the book is to put this argument on as rigorous as possible scientific and philosophical foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Nature's Destiny. (Michael Denton)
    Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search Was Darwin Wrong? Nature's Destiny. From the impossibility of evolution to the inevitability of evolution: Anti-Evolutionst Michael Denton turns into an 'Evolutionist'. A review by Gert Korthof Jun 16 1998. updated: Nov 8 2003 He who finds coincidences, was looking for plan and purpose (gk) 'Nature's Destiny' is one long argument for the biocentric Nature's Destiny. How the Laws Fine Tuning of the Universe. In that sense it is a greatly expanded version of the chapter "The Puzzle of Perfection" in of Biology reveal Purpose in the his Evolution: a theory in crisis(1986). However the Fine Tuning Universe. Argument does not only imply cosmological evolution, but it by Michael Denton also implies biological evolution. And that is exactly what his The Free Press previous book Evolution: A Theory in crisis attacked in the 1998 most thorough way. And biological evolution, that is the 454 pages common descent of all life, is exactly what he defends now in Nature's Destiny. Not a limited version of evolution. No, Part I: Life complete naturalistic evolution from inorganic materials to the 1. The Harmony of the Spheres 2. The Vital Fluid first cell to humans. 3. The Fitness of the Light Thereby he directly opposes 'special creationists' such as Phillip 4. The Fitness of the Elements and the Earth Johnson (6). Above that he claims that evolution is directed and the 5. The Fitness of Carbon origin of life is inevitable if conditions are right. 6. The Vital Gases Does he present new facts about evolution to support his claim ? Do 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, Discovery Institute
    CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ISCAST Online Journal 2016 Vol. 7. Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis By Michael Denton, Discovery Institute Press, 2016 (358 pages with index, Kindle edition available) A review by Will Jones Michael Denton is a biochemist who has some questions for Darwinian evolution. Many of those who work in the field of evolutionary developmental biology, he notes, have started to question whether Darwin’s theory really does hold all the answers for the traits they are studying. There is no doubt, of course, about natural selection, or common descent over millions of years, or the progressive emergence of higher and more complex forms of life. Those are beyond question. But Darwin’s explanation for how the novel characteristics of organisms emerge – gradually, through numerous slight successive beneficial adaptations – is very specific, and may not provide the best explanation for many of the most important characteristics of biological life. In particular there are the homologs, says Denton – the traits shared by all the members of a particular biological group which define them as belonging to that group, the “taxa-defining novelties” which underpin the schema of the great tree of life. Examples include hair, feathers, the pentadactyl limb, the diaphragm, and many more. There are three problems with a classical Darwinian explanation for these traits, says Denton, a British-Australian biochemist and author of the influential 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, to which the present book is a follow-up. The first is the lack of transitional forms present in the fossil record to show the development of the traits from more primitive forms – at their first appearance they are already the finished product.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrate Suggestions from Thaxton and West E-Mails
    The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design by Jonathan Witt, Ph.D. Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute www.discovery.org/csc/ www.intelligentdesign.org Executive Summary: Critics of the theory of intelligent design often assert that it is simply a re-packaged version of creationism, and that it began after the Supreme Court struck down the teaching of creationism in Edwards v. Aguillard in 1987. In reality, the idea of intelligent design reaches back to Socrates and Plato, and the term “intelligent design” as an alternative to blind evolution was used as early as 1897. More recently, discoveries in physics, astronomy, information theory, biochemistry, genetics, and related disciplines during the past several decades provided the impetus for scientists and philosophers of science to develop modern design theory. Many of the central ideas for the theory of intelligent design were already being articulated by scientists and philosophers of science by the early 1980s, well before the Edwards v. Aguillard decision. * * * * * * What is the origin of the theory of intelligent design? Opponents of the theory often insist that intelligent design emerged as a conspiracy to circumvent the 1987 Supreme Court decision, Edwards vs. Aguillard.1 There the Court struck down a Louisiana law promoting the teaching of creation science in public school science classes. The theory of intelligent design, critics insist, is merely a clever end-run around this ruling, biblical creationism in disguise. The problem with this claim is the intelligent design predates Edwards vs. Aguillard by many years. Its roots stretch back to design arguments made by Socrates and Plato,2 and even the term “intelligent design” is more than 100 years old.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution
    Sci & Educ (2014) 23:2095–2117 DOI 10.1007/s11191-014-9696-8 A Tale of Two Crocoducks: Creationist Misuses of Molecular Evolution James R. Hofmann Published online: 17 April 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Although some creationist objections to evolutionary biology are simplistic and thus are easily refuted, when more technical arguments become widespread it is important for science educators to explain the relevant science in a straightforward manner. An interesting case study is provided by misguided allegations about how cytochrome c data pertain to molecular evolution. The most common of these misrepresentations bears a striking similarity to a particularly glaring misunderstanding of what should be expected of a transitional form in a fossil sequence. Although evangelist Kirk Cameron’s ridiculous injunction of a hypothetical ‘crocoduck’ as an example of a potential transitional form is frequently invoked to illustrate the ignorance of many critics of evolutionary science, a strikingly analogous argument was applied to cytochrome c data by biochemist Michael Denton in 1985. The details of this analogy are worth exploring to clarify the fallacy of the widely circulated molecular argument. 1 Introduction Although creationist arguments are often so rife with fallacies as not to merit scholarly attention, science educators do have a responsibility to address some of them. This is particularly true when invalid conclusions are drawn from a misapplication of relatively complex technical concepts and then widely distributed to uncritical audiences. Careful analysis in such a case stands to inform not only science students but also the creationists who circulate the argument in question.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Denton
    Evolution: a theory in crisis (Michael Denton). Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search Was Darwin Wrong? Evolution: a theory in crisis? a review by Gert Korthof 26 Oct 1997 (updated: 29 July 2005) This review consists of a summary, criticism and conclusion of this now classic book. At first the title of this book withheld me from buying it. Crisis? I "Evolution: a theory in crisis." studied biology and specialised in genetics and evolution, but I never heard of by Michael Denton a crisis in Darwinism. Yes, I noticed problems and controversies, the theory Adler & Adler, 1986. was incomplete, but crisis? Now I've got the book from a friend (1) and I read it. 368 pages. Criticism of the fundamentals of Darwinism was not part of my biological Hard cover. training. But once I had gone through the 'This-must-be-a-big- With illustrations misunderstanding' phase and had learned to use the non-evolution paradigm, it became suddenly possible to read the standard evolutionary publications in a Contents: new, critical way. This is hard or even impossible within the Darwinian paradigm. This is the attitude Feyerabend probably had in mind when he wrote: 1. Genesis Rejected 2. The Theory of Evolution 3. From Darwin to Dogma "The first step in our criticism of customary concepts is to step outside the circle and either to invent a new conceptual 4. A Partial Truth system or import such a system from outside science, from 5. The Typological Perception of Nature religion, from mythology." (6) 6. The Systema Naturae from Aristotle to Cladistics 7.
    [Show full text]